Appellate lawyer, Cynthia Kuehl provides a summary of
Lerners' Top 5 Ontario civil appeals decisions from July
2014.
1. Trillium Motor World Ltd. v. General Motors of Canada
Limited, 2014 ONCA 497.
The Court of Appeal considering whether a motions judge erred in
applying the 4th presumptive connecting factor from the Van Breda
test requiring that a contract be connected with a dispute was made
in the province, whether a motions judge erred in applying the 2nd
presumptive connecting factor from the Van Breda test requiring a
defendant to be carrying on business in Ontario, and whether or not
Quebec would be more appropriate than Ontario for the third party
proceedings against Quebec counsel. The Court of Appeal dismissed
the action noting it was fair to subject the third party appellants
to the power of the Ontario courts.
2. Harris v. Leikin Group Inc., 2014 ONCA 479.
The Court of Appeal considering whether a trial judge erred in
directing a hybrid trial as it effected the ability to control the
trial, and whether a trial judge made procedural and substantive
errors. The Court of Appeal dismissed the action noting that the
time to challenge the directions for trial was when the directions
were issued, not on the appeal, and that the trial judge made no
error in directing a hybrid trial.
3. Baywood Homes Partnership v. Haditaghi, 2014 ONCA
450.
The Court of Appeal considering whether a motions judge erred in
failing to assess the advisability of hearing the motions for
summary judgment and in the way they were addressed addressing
given the context of the overall litigation, and whether it was
appropriate for the motions judge to dismiss the main action on the
basis that it was prohibited by a release which the motions judge
found was authentic and valid. The Court of Appeal found the
motions judge did err and reversed the decision dismissing the
claim, ordered that both the claim and counterclaim proceed to
trial and cautioned against excessive reliance on decontextualized
Affidavit and transcript evidence in the context of summary
judgment, particularly in matters involving credibility.
4. Simpson Wigle Law v. Lawyers' Professional
Indemnity Corporation, 2014 ONCA 492.
The Court of Appeal considering whether an application judge erred
in finding that facts alleged in the Statement of Claim present a
single claim under a policy or whether the facts were sufficiently
different so as to give rise to two claims for the purpose of a
policy, which thereby increases the aggregate policy limit
available. The Court of Appeal found that there was insufficient
association/connection between the two claims and, therefore, they
were not "related" within the meaning of the
policy.
5. Hincks v. Gallardo, 2014 ONCA 494.
The Court of Appeal considering whether a motions judge erred in
interpreting the terms spouse and marriage under the Divorce Act
and Family Law Act following a separation in a civil partnership
constructed under the UK Civil Partnership Act, whether there was
an error in finding that the parties intention was to change their
status to "married", whether the motions judge erred in
law in failing to consider the effect of UK Civil Partnership Act
and in not considering the fact that rights under the Family Law
Act could be enforced by the respondent. The Court of Appeal
dismissed the action stating that the motions judge's
interpretation of the terms spouse and marriage was consistent with
the approach of the Supreme Court of Canada and correctly conducted
statutory interpretation in an appropriate manner.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
